Crosslinguistic evidence against interference from extra-sentential distractors

IF 2.9 1区 心理学 Q1 LINGUISTICS Journal of memory and language Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2024.104514
Daniela Mertzen , Anna Laurinavichyute , Brian W. Dillon , Ralf Engbert , Shravan Vasishth
{"title":"Crosslinguistic evidence against interference from extra-sentential distractors","authors":"Daniela Mertzen ,&nbsp;Anna Laurinavichyute ,&nbsp;Brian W. Dillon ,&nbsp;Ralf Engbert ,&nbsp;Shravan Vasishth","doi":"10.1016/j.jml.2024.104514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Cue-based retrieval theories of sentence processing posit that long-distance dependency formation is guided by a cue-based retrieval mechanism: dependents are retrieved via retrieval cues associated with a verb. When retrieval cues match multiple similar items in memory, this leads to cue-based retrieval interference. A landmark study by Van Dyke and McElree tested interference from sentence-external items: retrieval cues were manipulated to (mis-)match semantically similar items presented prior to a target dependency. The support for interference of this type is weak, and only comes from English object cleft constructions. Our study provides a cross-linguistic investigation of interference from sentence-external items: Three eyetracking studies in English, German and Russian tested interference in the online processing of filler-gap dependencies under varying task demands. A fourth study attempted to replicate the Van Dyke and McElree study using self-paced reading. Bayes factors analyses show cross-linguistic evidence against interference from sentence-external items. A broader implication from these data is that cue-based retrieval interference is driven by sentence-internal distracting items, suggesting that a cue-based search is restricted to the current linguistic context.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16493,"journal":{"name":"Journal of memory and language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X24000172/pdfft?md5=2d5bd19be51e756a7c6ec5785c27b7bc&pid=1-s2.0-S0749596X24000172-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of memory and language","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X24000172","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cue-based retrieval theories of sentence processing posit that long-distance dependency formation is guided by a cue-based retrieval mechanism: dependents are retrieved via retrieval cues associated with a verb. When retrieval cues match multiple similar items in memory, this leads to cue-based retrieval interference. A landmark study by Van Dyke and McElree tested interference from sentence-external items: retrieval cues were manipulated to (mis-)match semantically similar items presented prior to a target dependency. The support for interference of this type is weak, and only comes from English object cleft constructions. Our study provides a cross-linguistic investigation of interference from sentence-external items: Three eyetracking studies in English, German and Russian tested interference in the online processing of filler-gap dependencies under varying task demands. A fourth study attempted to replicate the Van Dyke and McElree study using self-paced reading. Bayes factors analyses show cross-linguistic evidence against interference from sentence-external items. A broader implication from these data is that cue-based retrieval interference is driven by sentence-internal distracting items, suggesting that a cue-based search is restricted to the current linguistic context.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
跨语言学证据表明,句外分心词不会造成干扰
基于检索线索的句子加工理论认为,长距离依存关系的形成是由基于检索线索的机制引导的:依存关系是通过与动词相关的检索线索检索出来的。当检索线索与记忆中的多个相似项目相匹配时,就会产生基于线索的检索干扰。Van Dyke 和 McElree 所做的一项具有里程碑意义的研究测试了来自句子外部项目的干扰:通过操纵检索线索来(错误地)匹配在目标依存词之前出现的语义相似的项目。对这种干扰的支持很弱,而且只来自英语的宾语裂隙结构。我们的研究对来自句子外部项目的干扰进行了跨语言调查:我们用英语、德语和俄语进行了三项眼动跟踪研究,测试了在不同任务要求下在线处理填空依存关系时产生的干扰。第四项研究试图利用自定进度阅读复制 Van Dyke 和 McElree 的研究。贝叶斯因子分析显示,跨语言证据表明句子外部项目不会产生干扰。这些数据的一个更广泛的含义是,基于线索的检索干扰是由句子内部的干扰项驱动的,这表明基于线索的检索仅限于当前的语言环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
14.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
12.7 weeks
期刊介绍: Articles in the Journal of Memory and Language contribute to the formulation of scientific issues and theories in the areas of memory, language comprehension and production, and cognitive processes. Special emphasis is given to research articles that provide new theoretical insights based on a carefully laid empirical foundation. The journal generally favors articles that provide multiple experiments. In addition, significant theoretical papers without new experimental findings may be published. The Journal of Memory and Language is a valuable tool for cognitive scientists, including psychologists, linguists, and others interested in memory and learning, language, reading, and speech. Research Areas include: • Topics that illuminate aspects of memory or language processing • Linguistics • Neuropsychology.
期刊最新文献
Self-Reported attention to changes and associations with episodic memory updating Individual differences in the reactivity effect of judgments of learning: Cognitive factors Understanding with the body? Testing the role of verb relative embodiment across tasks at the interface of language and memory Visual context benefits spoken sentence comprehension across the lifespan Setting the “tone” first and then integrating it into the syllable: An EEG investigation of the time course of lexical tone and syllable encoding in Mandarin word production
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1